Legacy of the 'big 3'

[Cherry_poppins]

You missed the point entirely. By slipping in where needed to new club/s - with Storm paying the bill - those new club/s has/ve a massive salary cap advantage.

How do they? These players have an NRL assigned minimum value which would've been a penalty given to the NRL instead of paid to the cheating players if they found clubs


The big four may have had to miss a year which would've been a just punishment

 

[ANTiLAG]

How do they? These players have an NRL assigned minimum value which would've been a penalty given to the NRL instead of paid to the cheating players if they found clubs


The big four may have had to miss a year which would've been a just punishment

No.

Assigning minimum values on just 4 players out of 500 registered NRL players would be a restraint of trade on the players. It is also possibly non-competitive that clubs at or near cap level would take issue with. They'd be prevented from acquiring and negotiating with a supply of player talent from the player market.

But lets look at basic human rights. People have the right to work. So unless you're suggesting that the players commited a crime (which would be defamatory by the way) and incarcerated, on home detention or under some career ending sanction, the players would be free to bank their Storm cheques honouring their contracts, leave Melbourne and uproot their families (way beyond reasonable mitigation) and go play for any club they choose on min wage if they so negotiated in a different state.

The NRL is not a sovereign state with law unto itself.

 

[Jerkwad2000]

No they had to prove the players they were retaining were under the cap. There was no excess payments.

But there were excess payments. Because the payments paid to Cameron Smith in the first place were excess, because when Melbourne re-signed him, they were already over the salary cap at that particular point in time.

The fact that AFTER the fact they got themselves under the cap doesn't change the fact that they had Smith (and others) under false pretenses. Every single cent they paid these players were excess payments. Payments that the other 15 clubs in the league were not paying.

3 years ago, the NRL would not ratify a contract for Brett Stewart until Manly got themselves under the salary cap for the following season. They weren't allowed to sign him and then fix it up later. No, they needed to be in a cap compliant place before the signing was ratified. This never happened with Smith. Melbourne was then allowed to pick and choose who they kept and who they lost, and I'll say it again, despite having no standing under which to even offer these players contracts.

I read a story today about how Slater wanted to be a Cowboy. Who knows, if Melbourne had actually played by the rules, whether he may have left. Nobody can answer these questions, because they didn't play by the rules. The game was not fair, as 15 teams were playing under 1 set of rules, and 1 team was playing by their own. And they continue to prosper from that unfair game today.

 

[Cherry_poppins]

No.

Assigning minimum values would be a restraint of trade on the players. It is also possibly non-competitive that clubs at or near cap level would take issue with. They'd be prevented from acquiring abd negotiating with a supply of player talent.

But lets look at basic human rights. People have the right to work. So unless you're suggesting that the players commited a crime, (which would be defamatory by the way) the players would be free to bank their Storm cheques honouring their contracts, leave Melbourne and uproot their families (way beyond reasonable mitigation) and go play for any club they choose on min wage if they so negotiated in a different state.

The NRL under Gallop assigned a minimum value to Tony Williams when he made the test side, they then preceded to f**king fine Manly for the privilege of not actually breaking the cap

So yes they can and have done that

 

[Jerkwad2000]

the players would be free to bank their Storm cheques honouring their contracts, leave Melbourne and uproot their families (way beyond reasonable mitigation) and go play for any club they choose on min wage if they so negotiated in a different state.

Is that much different than what happens now? Robbie Farah just this season a perfect example.

Assigning minimum values would be a restraint of trade on the players

But this does happen. The Roosters for example couldn't sign Tedesco for 100k. The NRL have values attached to players.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Is that much different than what happens now? Robbie Farah just this season a perfect example.

Exactly my point.

But this does happen. The Roosters for example couldn't sign Tedesco for 100k. The NRL have values attached to players.

The NRL with the RLPA has minimum wages set for the 25 member playing squad of each club. I think its about $80,000.00 at the moment. It used to be $60,000 for 1 to 17 and $55,000 for 18 to 25.

 

[ANTiLAG]

The NRL under Gallop assigned a minimum value to Tony Williams when he made the test side, they then preceded to f**king fine Manly for the privilege of not actually breaking the cap

So yes they can and have done that

Are you referring to this?

Manly were punished thanks to Tony Williams' premature exit to Canterbury. Williams enjoyed a heavily back-ended two-year deal with a get-out clause in his favour for 2013.

Schubert determined that Williams' 2012 salary was well below reasonable market price and used his discretion to bump it up.

The difference put Manly $85,000 over last year's cap and they were duly fined that amount. Sea Eagles CEO David Perry said the club would consider an appeal.

"This breach was in relation to one contract and one player departing earlier than expected," Perry said. "Never at any stage did the club believe that it had not complied with both the spirit and intent of the salary cap."

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/sa...s/news-story/34051f35f65926ca6a267972fa97950f

Because if this is what you are referring to, the issue and why the NRL could do what it did is the low payment in initial years played of a back ended deal not fulfilled, and its relative value to the club in the years played. (Backended deals are good for clubs at the start, and not so good for salary caps at the end - clubs could potentially rort the cap by offering back ended deals that are not fulfilled). This is for figuring salary cap breaches, not for determining the agreed value of Tony Williams salary to actually play for Manly. If Manly had got ridden of unsigned Ballin and kept Williams who completed his original contract for Manly, there would have been no issue to the Williams contract by the NRL salary cap auditors. Schubert did not bump up the contract to a reasonable market value, he recognized it was well below. This is a factor in determining the existence and significance of a breach and not setting what the value ought to have been. He has discretion to work out the actual early year value with the whole contract, and not limited to the back ended contract early year stated value when not fulfilled.

 

[myrrh ken]

As a Parra fan, it's just a bit galling that the timing of the systemic cap rorting by the Storm came to light when it did... What I mean is, look at the Dragons in 2010, they got to win their premiership but didn't play against what was essentially the same cheating team that Parra and Manly did in

Fruit from the poisoned tree

A policeman can find a murderer murdering in their own house but without a warrant or without a reason for entering that murder is unpunishable and everything they find in that house is fruit from the poisoned tree meaning it cannot be used

Judge has discretion to allow it.

 

[Perth Red]

A cop can't just bust into your house and scream surprise motherf**ker

They need to have a reasonable suspicion or a warrant not just pot luck

Arguably you could be murdering someone quietly without any chance of people outside the room knowing what the f**k your doing, out of sight obviously

Geez would have to be a lucky cop to just happen to choose a house to walk into a murder was taking place in! I've read some dumb sht on here but this is Grand Final worthy lol

 

[mave]

Geez would have to be a lucky cop to just happen to choose a house to walk into a murder was taking place in! I've read some dumb sht on here but this is Grand Final worthy lol

You would be an excellent judge tbh, given your history of sht posting.

 

[typicalfan]

I am sure the rest of the competition would love 3 clubs who happened to have space at the time take Smith Cronk and Slater on min wage. The way the NRL did it was probably the best they could. The Storm benefitting still is highly debatable. They have all re signed when they have had the opportunity to move on. Plus they were left with players on over inflated salaries. It takes more than 3 players to win a premiership. They are going good with them but that is as much to do with the supporting cast and next gen like Munster Bromwich Addo Carr etc.

 

[Chimp]

On Smith, he's clearly a super player, incredibly influential on his teams results through his performances, the influence he has on his team mates, the influence he has on the opposition (players are in awe of him and give him for too much respect IMO) and the influence he has on the refs. And he's ridiculously durable - I'm sure I heard he's only missed 6 games through injury in his whole career - that is ridiculous if true.

But... The rorting and way it was 'punished' or 'rectified' did work in Melbournes favour in terms of being able to keep the majority of the squad together, and as a minimum, I don't think points scored or 'wins' from the seasons they were caught with double books should be included in any records - those wins were not achieved fairly (hence the removal of Premierships) and therefore should not be included in either the club or players historic stats - they're all null and void, like the competition for that year. There's no way they'd have those same win percentages had they not been cheating.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I am sure the rest of the competition would love 3 clubs who happened to have space at the time take Smith Cronk and Slater on min wage. The way the NRL did it was probably the best they could. The Storm benefitting still is highly debatable. They have all re signed when they have had the opportunity to move on. Plus they were left with players on over inflated salaries. It takes more than 3 players to win a premiership. They are going good with them but that is as much to do with the supporting cast and next gen like Munster Bromwich Addo Carr etc.

*This is a general reply to this and previous posts and not directed at typicalfan individually.*

Why would anyone rationally want 3 clubs instead of one to have a psuedo-cap advantage and why do you assume its 3 clubs? How are you going to ban all 3 from joining Nrth Qld, Bris or the Tits and granting this club a psuedo-super-cap advantage greater in proportion than the cheating Storm? These guys are long term friends who shared a house together with Hoffman.

Ya'll gave some views that football players have less human rights than regular folk with their right to work together.

The NRL pushed the boat way out as it was by demanding one of the 4 leave. The Storm acceded gratiously with GI moving on. This doesn't make the demand legitimate.

Ya'll demanding players lose human rights on their right to trade freely (incl working together for same employer) when no crime has been commited by them nor have they been found guilty of any alleged crime. They're still and remained at all times NRL registrable players who weren't found to bring the NRL into disrepute. You're limiting the employer's hire rights beyond an agreed salary cap and registered player requirement also. Australia isn't North Korea. People have freedoms. Aggrieved football fans don't get to take those away 'cos they feel slighted. Your suggested solutions may seem fair and just to you, but they are repugnant to legal rights.

The NRL did bloody damn well to get the Storm to accede to the decrease the big 4 to big 3. 'Cos that demand smacks of illegitimacy to me. Practically the Storm had to get under the cap so prolly saw little benefit in litigating the point. But to strip all 4 or the whole squad and prevent them playing together at a new club- well at that point the practicalities and benefits to litigating change no end for the Big 3.

 

[Canard]

PED use is a lesser crime then a club breaking the cap in LU land.

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

*This is a general reply to this and previous posts and not directed at typicalfan individually.*

Why would anyone rationally want 3 clubs instead of one to have a psuedo-cap advantage and why do you assume its 3 clubs? How are you going to ban all 3 from joining Nrth Qld, Bris or the Tits and granting this club a psuedo-super-cap advantage greater in proportion than the cheating Storm? These guys are long term friends who shared a house together with Hoffman.

Ya'll gave some views that football players have less human rights than regular folk with their right to work together.

The NRL pushed the boat way out as it was by demanding one of the 4 leave. The Storm acceded gratiously with GI moving on. This doesn't make the demand legitimate.

Ya'll demanding players lose human rights on their right to trade freely (incl working together for same employer) when no crime has been commited by them nor have they been found guilty of any alleged crime. They're still and remained at all times NRL registrable players who weren't found to bring the NRL into disrepute. You're limiting the employer's hire rights beyond an agreed salary cap and registered player requirement also. Australia isn't North Korea. People have freedoms. Aggrieved football fans don't get to take those away 'cos they feel slighted. Your suggested solutions may seem fair and just to you, but they are repugnant to legal rights.

The NRL did bloody damn well to get the Storm to accede to the decrease the big 4 to big 3. 'Cos that demand smacks of illegitimacy to me.

It's sport, not a democracy. Cheating is not ok. I've said my piece - removing all players acquired or retained during massive salary cap infringements to remove all suggestion of cheating for the club moving forward. You disagree. The players remained and until they've all retired, the stain remains against the club in the eyes of many fans, and nothing will change that

 

[WaznTheGreat]

PED use is a lesser crime then a club breaking the cap in LU land.

I should take PEDS to see how it improves my trolling

 

[ANTiLAG]

It's sport, not a democracy.

What does this statement even mean to you? That the regular law does not apply to the NRL and sportspersons? Sportsperson have less rights than regular folk? What are you trying to say?

 

[SBD82]

I should take PEDS to see how it improves my trolling

You don't need it. You've hooked plenty of fish in the last couple of days.

 

[The_Shield]

PED use is a lesser crime then a club breaking the cap in LU land.

Unless it was Melbourne who used PEDs. Then it would be the crime of the century

 

[The_Shield]

I should take PEDS to see how it improves my trolling

Maybe Hayne should, then he might actually be able to win a comp